Hi Michael
Yes, there are many lines in the logs saying:
hit FileNotFoundException when loading commit "segment_X"; skipping
this commit point
...so it looks like the new code is working perfectly.
I am sorry to be vague... but how do I check which segments file is
opened when a new writer is cr
Hi,
:
: lucene documentation seems to be very confusing... here is my predicament
:
: I have an object like the following:
:
: public class PropertyImpl implements Property {
:
: String id;
:
: List names = new ArrayList();
:
: String address = "";
:
: String city = "";
:
: String street = "";
:
:
I'm having several problems with deleting documents with Lucene 2.2.
Via the IndexWriter, I can successfully delete a document by its primary
key via a Term, but ONLY if the field was stored as
Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED. If it was stored as TOKENIZED, the debug output
says it is deleting the do
"Patrick Kimber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, there are many lines in the logs saying:
> hit FileNotFoundException when loading commit "segment_X"; skipping
> this commit point
> ...so it looks like the new code is working perfectly.
Super!
> I am sorry to be vague... but how do I check wh
Hoss,
Thanks for your reply. You are correct. I am working with the Lucene Demo
and trying to get some traction. But without much luck. Most postings on
the list are way beyond me. I continue to research the literature in order
to find something that will bring me gently forward so that I ca
I am considering using Lucene in my mini Grid-based search engine. I would
like to partition my index by term as opposed to partition by document. From
what i have read in the mailing list so far, it seems like partition by term
is impossible with Lucene. am i right to conclude this! I know Nutch
It looks that we may have different cases.
I was hoping to answer the original question which was how to retrieve
pages of matching documents from a Lucene index (no database mentioned).
>>So far worked just fine. I have 5000 rows of items and I think will
still work fine later when I'd have
Nick, are you opening a new IndexSearcher after you close the IndexWriter?
-Yonik
On 7/4/07, Nick Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm having several problems with deleting documents with Lucene 2.2.
Via the IndexWriter, I can successfully delete a document by its primary
key via a Term, but
A couple of things would help us help you
1> tell us what you're trying to do. What's the point of your code?
Offhand, I can't tell what it is you're really after.
2> post an example of query.toString(); along with your sample
for one of the offending queries.
3> Post the query stri
Ndapa Nakashole a écrit :
> I am considering using Lucene in my mini Grid-based search engine. I
> would
> like to partition my index by term as opposed to partition by
> document. From
> what i have read in the mailing list so far, it seems like partition
> by term
> is impossible with Lucene. am
First, get Luke (google lucene, luke). Use it to open the index created
by the demo (I confess I don't know if the index is a RAMdir or FSDIR.
if it's a RAMdir, find the code in the demo that opens it and change it
to an FSDir). This is important as it'll give you a clue about the
structure of an
This is exactly the behavior I'd expect.
Consider what would happen otherwise. Say you have documents
with the following values for a field (call it blah).
some data
some data I put in the index
lots of data
data
Then I don't want deleting on the term blah:data to remove all
of them. Which seems
I am.
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Nick, are you opening a new IndexSearcher after you close the IndexWriter?
--
"Courage isn't just a matter of not being frightened, you know. It's being
afraid and doing what you have to do anyway."
Doctor Who - Planet of the Daleks
This messa
I think I follow you. I don't have a problem with storing something like
a primary key as UN_TOKENIZED, though I'm a bit baffled about why it
didn't work as TOKENIZED, since the _only_ thing in that field is the
value of the primary key (ie, the string value of some integer). It seems
like it
See below
On 7/4/07, Nick Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I follow you. I don't have a problem with storing something like
a primary key as UN_TOKENIZED, though I'm a bit baffled about why it
didn't work as TOKENIZED, since the _only_ thing in that field is the
value of the primary
A little more digging and I found the problem (amazing what coffee can
do). It was a bad assertion in my unit test. Basically I was checking to
see that the article was indexed after the update, but didn't check to see
whether it was indexed BEFORE the update. It wasn't. Or rather, it was,
:-) The use of wikipedia data here is no secret; it's all over
www.freebase.com. I just hoped to avoid being sucked into a "what is the best
way to index wikipedia with Lucene?" discussion, which I believe several other
groups are already tackling.
At index time, I used a per document boost (o
It looks like you may already be aware of this, but if not, this is
something Chris H. posted quite a while ago that I found useful
<<>>
Erick
On 7/4/07, Tim Sturge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:-) The use of wikipedia data here is no secret; it's all over
www.freebase.com. I just hoped to
On 3-Jul-07, at 4:43 PM, Tim Sturge wrote:
Here's the explain output I currently get for "George Bush" "George
W Bush", "John Kerry" "John Denver" and "John Bush". (there are
others in between, but they follow very much the same pattern; an
enormous score for one of "John" or "Bush" and a v
On 4-Jul-07, at 5:31 AM, Ndapa Nakashole wrote:
I am considering using Lucene in my mini Grid-based search engine.
I would
like to partition my index by term as opposed to partition by
document. From
what i have read in the mailing list so far, it seems like
partition by term
is impossible
20 matches
Mail list logo